Heather Mills’ former nanny sues over naked spray tans


It seems like many people who have the unfortunate task of working for Heather Mills opt to sue her at some point. Her former publicist sued her earlier this year for nonpayment of $300,000 for over four years of work. Mills kept promising her PR rep Michele Elyzabeth that she would pay her once she received her divorce settlement, only to turn around and stiff her once the millions were in the bank. Elyzabeth says that Mills also made her cover most of their meals and drinks when they went out.

Now Mills’ former nanny is telling a disturbing story of the harassment she endured from Paul McCartney’s ex wife. The nanny, who resigned in September when she tried to return to work after maternity leave, has filed suit alleging that Mills made her come in early every morning to blow dry her hair and forced her to give her naked spray tans once a week.

Heather Mills was said to be devastated last night after it emerged her former nanny is taking her to a tribunal alleging sex discrimination and intimidation.

Sara Trumble claims she was given duties way beyond her role as childminder to five-year-old Beatrice, Miss Mills’s daughter by Sir Paul McCartney.

She has complained she was asked to give Miss Mills naked spray tans, come to work at 7.30am to blow dry her hair, and work as late as midnight.

The 24-year- old nanny lodged a constructive dismissal claim with an employment tribunal in Ashford, Kent, last week.

The two sides now have 28 days to try to reach an agreement – and if they fail they will have to air their differences in court…

Miss Trumble resigned in September and claims her job altered after she returned to work from maternity leave earlier this year.

She has complained to friends that she was made to work unsociable hours, including in March this year when she says she was asked to drive to Heathrow at midnight to collect Beatrice, who had flown in from the United States accompanied by a security guard.

According to a Sunday newspaper, Miss Trumble says she had to give Miss Mills weekly fake-tanning sessions.

Miss Trumble is expected to claim that she felt intimidated by Miss Mills, who demanded she keep silent about everything she saw and heard while working for her.

[From The Daily Mail]

A source from Mills’ side counters that she gave the nanny a car when she left the job and paid her medical expenses. Even if that’s true, it’s no excuse for making the woman blow dry her hair every morning and give spray tans. She’s a nanny, not a beautician.

If this was the first allegation against Mills you might be inclined to see her side of the story, but given everything we’ve heard about her the claims are likely to be understated. Working for that sociopath must take a lot out of a person and maybe this woman will get some compensation for all that she endured.

Mills is stubborn and loves playing the victim so you know this isn’t the last we’ll hear of this. She’ll let it drag out into court and it will probably end up costing her much more than if she’d just quietly settled it – not unlike her insistence that she represent herself in the divorce proceedings. She ended up costing herself tens of millions in the divorce by continuing to plead her delusional case and ruining her credibility every time she opened her mouth. We’re sure to learn more about this case while Mills shrieks that it’s everyone else’s fault and they’re all out to get her.

Heather Mills is shown on 8/16/08. Credit WENN

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

16 Responses to “Heather Mills’ former nanny sues over naked spray tans”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. RReedy says:

    This is a disgusting person who thinks she is something special, therefore runs roughshod over everyone in her orbit. Hope the Nanny collects plenty. I hear Heather is running through her money at a fast clip..I predict she will be down to her last pound (or dollar)by 2010. Poor Beatrice. Imagine having a mother like Heather. Gives me hives thinking about it.

  2. Izzy says:

    Gold digging whore!

  3. Ohforf says:

    I don’t have a whole lot of sympathy for these sorts of people. “I was FORCED to do this that and the other thing in the course of doing my job and I hated it and blah blah so I deserve millions of dollars”.

    Crap.

    If you stay at a job and do things that you consider unreasonable, then you have nobody to blame but yourself. I’ve walked away from PLENTY of jobs because I was being asked to do things that were out of line with my job duties. I know some of you will say “But she had kids and needed her job” well to that I say thats what savings are for. Responsible people will always find a way to have SOME money set aside for emergencies. A lot of people COULD cut their expenses and live on a lot less than they do, but nobody wants to sacrifice fun or comfort in exchange for security.

    I see this woman as the type who took the job, did whatever unreasonable thing she was asked to do without complaint, then when she lost her job wants to sue to get rich quick. I hope her suit is thrown out. No matter how batshit crazy Mills is, this woman doesn’t deserve to make money off of a lame suit.

  4. Sleepy says:

    It’s perfectly reasonable to seek redress if you are required to perform tasks that aren’t in your job description: employers should have to pay for what they demand. I can’t see how hair styling or personal grooming duties fit into “Nanny,” and employers should absolutely ensure employees have reasonable working hours. Seems to me that celebrities could reschedule flights, etc., if they cause staff to work all hours of the day & night. I’m also a bit confused about the “she paid all of her medical expenses” part – doesn’t the UK have a national health system? It sounds like the nanny is taking appropriate steps since she’s going through an “employment tribunal.” Here in the US, a disgruntled employee would seek relief via the Dep’t of Labor. To me, it sounds like the same kind of venue. If this was a ‘first’ for Heather Mills, I’d be far more suspicious, but with her reputation, I’m much more inclined to believe the nanny.

  5. voodoobetty says:

    Am I the only person who wonders if they spray the fake leg too or do they have to whip up a batch of tanning spray to match it?

  6. Kink says:

    I would never do something I didn’t want to do, so I think these people do these things to stay in the celebrity’s favor and keep their job. Only after they are fired do they make a big stink…i don ‘t think that is coincidence, i think it’s character.

    LMAO voodoo…but I don’t think the tanner will stick to the leg because it is a smooth plastic surface. On her skin, the pigment has her wrinkles and pores to cling to hehehe.

  7. journey says:

    ohforf: don’t know quite how to break it to you, but there are people in this world who bust their ass working and can barely meet the essential needs for their families. They’re not out partying their money away, they’re just trying to pay their rent, groceries, utilities, childcare, transportation and other essentials. It’s especially difficult for many single mothers, i’ve had two women bosses who divorced at a young age (the ex-husbands turned out to be rotters), and they scraped and struggled and lived beyond frugally to raise their families. so please, a bit of compassion. just because you have the skills and confidence to walk away from jobs that displease you, not everyone feels they have that luxury.

  8. Codzilla says:

    journey: Well said, and you’re exactly right.

  9. video_slacker says:

    ohforf & Kink: you seem to have missed the portion of the article that mentions the nanny resigned because she was required to do things that weren’t a part of her job description. It would be like you being hired as an office executive and a year later being told by your employer that you were required to babysit their kids. It’s not what you signed on for & a ridiculous requirement. Finding new employment because you had to walking away from a job you love because of unreasonable requirements is harder than it sounds.

  10. Baholicious says:

    Ohforf still lives chez parents I suspect.

  11. Ohforf says:

    Journey: What makes you think this woman is so unskilled and destitute that she had to work for Mills slavishly? You don’t get a job taking care of someone like Heather Mills kid if you’re some impoverished uneducated peasant with no marketable skills. She had the ability to impress Mills enough to get the job, and I doubt she’d have many issues with finding new employment, particularly with this job on her resume. I don’t think she should cash in on leaving a bad job, just because the employer is a nutjob and happens to be rich and famous. If she left the job because unreasonable things were being asked of her, why should she feel entitled to a payday? She left the job, and that should be the end of it. People leave jobs with unreasonable expectations daily, but only rich and famous people get sued by their former pissed off employees, because everyone just wants a payday. I think it’s lame.

    Baholicious: I’ve lived on my own since I was 17 and never had to go back. I’ve earned every cent I ever made by working for it. If you think being disgusted by people obviously just looking for an easy payday means I live at home then I don’t really see the connection. You might think it’s appropriate to sue people you stop working for, just because they have money, but I don’t.

  12. drm says:

    @ journey: well said I couldn’t ‘walk away’ from my current job, I have kids and mortgage and responsibilities. And in the current economic climate job replacement isn’t that easy. Ohforf needs a reality check.

    In New Zealand employers have a LEGAL responsibility, upheld by legislation, to act “in good faith” with an employee. If they don’t and in this case, if true, I would argue that Mills behaviour is NOT in good faith, then the employee can take a personal grievance and seek mediation. If mediation fails it can go throught the Employment Relations Authority who make a decision and in some cases award monetary damages. NOT anything like American damages though, not even a 10th of what the nanny will be seeking.

    I hope she wins…it sounds completely plausible given Mills past behaviour.

  13. CH says:

    Ohforf; you are totally right; this “nanny” has jumped straight on the Mills/McCartney gravy train & is just hoping for a pay off & 15 minutes of fame. I’ll wait for next weeks Sunday newpapers with the “nanny/wants to be a model photos”

  14. dovesgate says:

    voodoobetty: Nope. I thought about that as soon as I looked at the title.

  15. Whitey Fisk says:

    I gotta say I see Ohforf’s point. When I first read this, I was struck by the use of the word “forced” as well. Seems like that word should be reserved for situations in which direct physical harm is threatened, or at least implied. Perhaps it was…but my guess is that her job description was more “personal assistant” than nanny. If her job description was strictly limited to childcare and she was fired after refusing to hose that psycho down with bronzer, now THAT’S a lawsuit. Obviously legal action is within this woman’s means. The timing of the suit is interesting, almost as though the nanny was waiting for the divorce to be resolved so she’d know how much Madame McCrazypants was good for. Plus she’s now suing Mills herself and Sir Paul is totally removed from it…her odds of winning are much better.

    It sounds to me like the nanny is a bit of a whore herself. I’ll bet she sells her “story” next. All that aside, I hope she takes Mills for every last dime.

  16. my God, i thought you were going to chip in with some decisive insight about debt at the end there, not leave it floating.